Slashdot Mirror
Kansas Challenges Definition of Science
nysus writes "Anti-evolutionists have made classrooms in Kansas a key battleground in America's culture war. Again. The New York Times reports they are proposing to change the definition of science in Kansas: 'instead of "seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us," the new standards would describe it as a "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."'" From the article: "In the first of three daylong hearings being referred to here as a direct descendant of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, a parade of Ph.D.'s testified Thursday about the flaws they saw in mainstream science's explanation of the origins of life. It was one part biology lesson, one part political theater, and the biggest stage yet for the emerging movement known as intelligent design, which posits that life's complexity cannot be explained without a supernatural creator."
...if there is a "supernatural" creator or force that has created the Universe (and the confluence of circumstances that led to its creation from essentially manifestly nothingness, and also life itself, could be considered on what I'd call a "supernatural" scale itself, but that's another topic), why must the scientific processes that describe any such events, and any potential forces that may transcend our understanding of the physical world, have to be mutually exclusive?
Many years ago, a student in my 7th grade biology class asked specifically about creationism during our section on evolution. My biology teacher gave a very short, thoughtful, and diplomatic answer. His answer, after quite a long pause:
"Well, some might say that the Bible tells what God did, and science explains how he did it."
Now, looking back as an engineer and scientist by education, I have always found the simplicity of that statement compelling, and have never had any trouble reconciling whatever beliefs I have in notions that could be described as "supernatural" with scientific fact and sound scientific theory.
I think the problem you have is with the people who literally believe that a white-bearded man in a robe literally created the Universe and Earth in 6 days around 6000 years ago, and then created the life to go on on it, and who discount valid science wholesale. Even though "creationists", and people who believe my last statement, may use "intelligent design" as a tool to further their agendas, that's not my interpretation of "intelligent design".
Personally, I rather liked Picard's response in "Where Silence Has Lease":
DATA:
I have a question, sir. What is death?
PICARD:
You've picked probably the most difficult of all questions, Data.
There is the beginning of a twinkle in Picard's eyes again. It is the sort of question that his mind loves.
Some explain it by inventing gods wearing their own form... and argue that the purpose of the entire universe is to maintain themselves in their present form in an Earth-like garden which will give them pleasure through all eternity. And at the other extreme, assuming that is an "extreme," are those who prefer the idea of our blinking into nothingness with all our experiences, hopes and dreams only an illusion.
DATA:
Which do you believe?
PICARD:
Considering the marvelous complexity of our universe, its clockwork perfection, its balances of this against that... matter, energy, gravitation, time, dimension, pattern, I believe our existence must mean more than a meaningless illusion. I prefer to believe that my and your existence goes beyond Euclidian and other "practical" measuring systems... and that, in ways we cannot yet fathom, our existence is part of a reality beyond what we understand now as reality.
Really: what's wrong with seeing the Universe and the wonderful complexity of everything from the scale of galaxies to the scale of atoms - or smaller - and our very lives as something more than the sum of its parts?
New Kansas Method:
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This makes me so angry, and more than a little sad.
"We're all afraid to change, and willing to fight against it. We don't want to have to admit that there are things we don't or can't understand. We need to be able to say 'This is absolutely true' if we're going to sleep at night."
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
I wonder how many of them were atheists... or biologists for that matter.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I'm a little confused. I don't see anything wrong with the definition above ! I beleive its more complete and doesn't seem to be pushing any creationism around !
This must be taught in our schools: "Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion. From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord's command. Vishnu spoke to his servant: 'It is time to begin.' Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: 'Create the world.' A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies. The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move. The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahma's creation."
The thing that I have never really understood about the anti-evolution Christian types is why it matters to them if their kids understand what the rest of the world is thinking? Its like the goal is absolute ignorance of everything not in the Bible. Nothing that I read in the Bible supports that viewpoint. Can anyone explain this?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
I am very anti-creationist, but I actually like their definition more. It recognizies that there isn't always a "natural" answer to the problems that science faces given the current information. In fact, looking for natural answers can be very unscientific.
For example, the astronomers of yore tried to explain the planet movements with natural answers that were not based on good scientific methods. Same with the people who wrote the Bible. The new definition actually outlines the methods that are essential to science, such as experimentation and theories.
... the emerging movement known as intelligent design, which posits that life's complexity cannot be explained without a supernatural creator
Yet for some reason we fall back to this "theory" because we don't understand what's going on? Ridiculous...
Just because we don't fully understand an aspect of nature yet doesn't mean that a natural process is so complex and impossible that a higher power had to make it... it only means that we are flawed and must wait until we fully grasp what is going on.
I'm sick of people filling in the blanks with "god did it!" without thinking "well... maybe we just need to study it more." Before you call me atheist, realize that I am a roman catholic, yet I can easily conceive how our life came to be after the big bang (let's not debate that right now) without any nudge from a higher power.
You are quick to argue that life could not have been created in nature, but forget the fact that God created nature itself.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's a little frustrating to realize, but I guess the cost of maintaining an intelligent, civilized society is a constant battle against ignorance. It is important that ordinary people speak out against attempts to change the science curriculum through political processes that are not subject to oversight (ie. inserting their own agendas into science curriculums without checks or balances).
I heard an excellent talk about the strategies of anti-evolutionists from the director of the center for science education recently. Two of her major points were that: (1)creationists seek to circumvent the usual curriculum review process and insert themselves directly into school board decisions politically, because they have come to realize that on careful examination, their ideas are untenable; and (2) the fundamental misunderstanding about the words behind the debate.
More specifically, in order for an idea to become incorporated in to a scientific education curriculum, it first must be proposed, examined by scientists, published, reviewed, tested for flaws and counterexamples, and then it becomes accepted as a theory (which by the way, means an idea that ties together consistently all aspects of the evidence, NOT just a "theory", or guess). Creationists, or intelligent design advocates, simply come up with an idea, and go right to the school board. Where are the checks and balances? The testing? The oversight?
And secondly, about the language. Normal people commonly feel that at the top of the hierarchy of importance are Facts. To them, facts are facts, immutable. You can't debate fact, as in "evolution is not a fact, so it doesn't occur." Observations are next, things that you see with your own eyes. And Theories? Theories are at the bottom of the scale, almost comparable to hopeful guesses. This is in part the fault of the language, that "theory" has come to mean "I, crackpot, have a theory about that."
But in fact, in science, Theory is at the top of the scale -- an idea that has consistently shown to uphold all the observations, and has been tested. At the bottom is just the opposite from what is commonly believed -- facts. Facts are things that you see every day, and carry no unifying meaning in themselves.
If we are to succeed in educating the population about the process of science, and *especially* why it is valuable to us a country, we need to get involved in the debate about the language and politics. Other countries, who don't have the luxury to squander valuable resources, are beginning to capture and exploit the wonders of science much more than we are -- and it is showing.
In it's ill-considered fight against science.
Which is a shame.
There are things that science will never be able to teach us, that desperately need to be taught. Things religion could, if it chose to stop wasting time arguing over whether speciation will occur given no outside (read: supernatural) influences.
Science will never present us with a peer-reviewed study proving once and for all that you should be good to your fellow man, and treat him like a brother. Particle accelerator runs will never hint that we all have it within us to put an end to petty bickering, violence, and even earth-shattering wars.
Will the next economic theory show once and for all, that there is so much more to be gained if every child went to bed without hunger? That great things could happen if we ignored greed and lived lives unblinded by mindless pursuit of wealth?
Every time a biblethumper gets pissy about "larnin' evomoluzhun in ar skools" they've missed their mark so completely, I don't know whether to chuckle or cry.
I posted separately as well, but I feel strongly enough to do so again...The loophole is in
the "logical argument" part of the definition.
The way it is worded, it doesn't explicitly state that you have to do all these things for it to be science. Someone could [as ID proponents do] take existing "pure" scienctific research, use it to posit that there is order to the universe and use inductive reasoning [logical argument] to "prove" that a supreme being exists.
This will move science into the realm of philosophy, and IMO, muddle the heads of schoolchildren in Kansas for years to come.
Who put this thing together? Me, that's who.
The Intelligent Design proponents had better be careful, or they might end up proving God out of existence.
"This quote is a product of the Frobozz Magic Quote Company."
An amazing book on this subject is "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. I read it because Douglas Adams recommended it in some of his writings.
The subtitle of the book is "Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design". It explains in great detail and clarity how in the long run natural selection allows only the mutations that are beneficial to continue to exist, leading to lifeforms that might *APPEAR* to have been designed, even though they were not.
One of the cases he looks at is the eye, with all of its complexity. Someone naively looking at it might easily assume that it is a clear example of something that must have been designed by a creator in advance. Dawkins shows how, over millions of years, tiny incremental advances could allow the eye to develop without any creator.
The only things required are 1) that whatever mutation that started as the eye, as simple as it may have been (perhaps a cell with the ability to detect light, for which brain cells have been shown to have the potential), gave at least a slight competitive advantage to the lifeform and 2) each additional mutation that took place over millions of years gave some slight advantage to the lifeform. Over a long time, in an environment with light, development of the eye becomes almost assured.
Complex biological systems work not because someone designed them to work, but because any deviation that does not work DIES. This naturally and inevitably leads to greater and greater complexity.
It may seem odd, but to my mind the new definition is actually a step forward for evolution:
Old
"seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us,"
"Seeking explanations" says nothing about how probably or sensible they have to be, or how you go about the seeking. "I threw yarrow stalks ito the air, and they indicated the universe was sneezed into being by the Great Green Arkleseizure" is covered under this definition. Hey, I'm seeking, and "natural" is a terribly wishy-washy cop-out word.
New
"continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena"
This more or less explicitely lays out the Scientific Method (thus neatly ruling out faith-based beliefs). Note also that it specifies "observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building..." - to my mind, this means that any approach which excludes one of more of these isn't Science. Were this not the case, it would be "... logical argument or theory building".
In addition, the new definition of science contains the word "hypothesis". To be a hypothesis an idea must be falsifiable - otherwise it's "just" a theory.
Creationism and Intelligent design moves ultimate responsibility for the creation of the universe completely outside of human ken, and as such is impossible to falsify (just like you can't prove the door behind you exists without directly or indirectly observing it. Given this, ID or creationism can't ever advance hypotheses, and so are unavoidably excluded from "Science", by this definition.
Of course, this definition will doubtless be abused by creationist fuckwits who don't understand the precise meaning of "hypothesis", but for anyone who properly understands the language they're speaking, it's pretty cut-and-dried, no?
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
Next time you microwave something, or wear clothing with synthetic fibers, or use TV or radio, ask yourself: "Would a slavish devotion to the literal interpretation of the bible have eventually resulted in the creation of the products I'm using? If anyone with new/different/progressive ideas and ideals were burned at the stake, would society grow and improve?" Then consider the answer you give yourself in light of the fact that fundamentalists posit that the ONLY valid point of view is the one that elevates the allegorical parable of the bible to absolutely infallible fact, and any/all other views as worthy of persecution and destruction.
If religion were allowed to run wild we'd be a world of zealots disconnected from our physical reality. At least when science has no agenda other than discovery of truth. Whereas religion *should* be about the discovery of truth but instead has devolved into an organization bent on the dissemination of faith, over and above the meaning or truth of the object of that faith. It's ceased to be about the truth and has come to be about group think and suppression of dissent. The church(es) have placed the wielding of political influence over and above the spiritual well being of their believers, and over and above the total well being of humanity as a whole.
what intelligent designer would design us so that we used the same tube for both respiration and eating?
Yea, and who put a sewer line in a recreational area!?
I dispute that - I think it'll be a great example of evolution.
The rest of the educated world will carry on learning evolution and other current best scientific theories. Our society and culture will advance, our technology will progress and we and our children will prosper in an atmosphere of rationality and freedom.
Kansas will devolve into a state where new ideas are banned, technology regresses and anything that contradicts the "Big Beard In The Sky" theory is first repressed, then outlawed. The people will grow up stupid and ignorant, to raise even more stupid and ignorant kids. Eventually the vicious cycle will spiral on down, until the populace is exclusively composed of barely-intelligent hominids, eventually losing the powers of speech and fire.
At this point we'll stop recognising them as human, and we can hunt and kill them for food. Eventually Homo Kansasians will effectively die out in the wild, out-competed by more intellectual wild animals or hunted into extinction by Homo Sapiens. Oh, alright, some small bedraggled breeding colonies might survive in zoos, and may eventually be Uplifted to normal human cognition again, but as a wild species they'll be extinct.
Voilá. Evolution in action.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
If you think letting religion run society is a good thing, consider comparing the Middle East to Europe.
. pdf
Round about 1200, Arab civilization was leading Europe in practically *every* category of art and science.
Then, for various reasons, Europe went through the Renaissance, where pre-Christian achievements were admired again, the Reformation, where the grip of the Catholic church over secular power was broken, and the Enlightenment, where rational inquiry was finally lifted above theology and scripture. The culmination for all of this was the devleopment of modern science, the Industrial Revolution and the Information Revolution.
The result of which is that you, sitting in Kansas, as the heir to all of this SECULAR ACHIEVEMENT, can type on a cheap computer and communicate with anyone anywhere in the world, in one of the richest countries on Earth, in the most prosperous society the world has ever known. In the achievement of which, religion sought to obstruct EVERY step along the way.
While, back in the Middle East, they've still got their dominant religion, and even got the chance in Iran and Afghanistan to have true rule by religious principles. The result of which is that the *entire* region http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2001/pdfs/tab1_1
of the Middle East and North Africa, with 290 million people, has an economy about the size of SPAIN, with 39 million people.
Yeah, I'd say that secularism is a good thing.
The problem with the majority of Christians in this country is that they worship the Bible instead of God. Instead of asking themselves "What would a kind and compassionate God think of homosexuality (for example)" they point to the Bible and say "look- it says here that that is wrong!"
:)
The Bible is just a book and it was written by human beings. It was written by people capable of making mistakes. It was written by people who may have witnessed events that they were incapable of comprehending. It was changed over time and translated. In other words- the Bible should be treated as a guide and not as the word of God because it isn't (maybe it was a long time ago but it isn't today).
Another thing that really ticks me off is that these people claim that the universe was created by an all powerful omniscient being- and then they claim to know what he/she/it is thinking. The arrogance is mind boggling. Folks- stop it. God wouldn't like- trust me I know what he is thinking
-sirket (an agnostic atheist)
When Evolution Is Outlawed
Only Outlaws Will Evolve
#!
imho, it appears they are explicitly trying to give equal value to exercises in "logic" as is given to the other criteria.
this is properly called philosophy.
sum.zero
You don't know much about evolution, do you? Before you dismiss the entire field you should study it little more.
For example, evolution nicely explains the following:
If you want to see evolution in action, read up on the evolution of the AIDS virus. Just be cause you can't understand it, it does not mean it is wrong.
...richie - It is a good day to code.